Caldwell v. de Korven

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Caldwell v. de Korven

32 Misc. 725, 66 N.Y.S. 309

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Misc. 725 (Caldwell v. de Korven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldwell v. de Korven, 32 Misc. 725, 66 N.Y.S. 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action was dismissed upon the ground that the copy summons served did not contain the date of its return. The record, however, is barren both of proof as well as of any admission that the paper purporting to be a copy of the summons was served upon the defendant. It appears from the return of the marshal, and also from his affidavit and that of the plaintiff’s attorney that a copy of the summons was personally served upon the defendant, and since such fact does not appear to have been [726]*726traversed, or proof submitted tending to show the contrary, the action of the justice in dismissing the action cannot be upheld.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The action was dismissed upon the ground that the copy summons served did not contain the date of its return. The record, however, is barren both of proof as well as of any admission that the paper purporting to be a copy of the summons was served upon the defendant. It appears from the return of the marshal, and also from his affidavit and that of the plaintiff’s attorney that a copy of the summons was personally served upon the defendant, and since such fact does not appear to have been [726]*726traversed, or proof submitted tending to show the contrary, the action of the justice in dismissing the action cannot be upheld.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 725, 66 N.Y.S. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-de-korven-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack